Higher Education

, Volume 77, Issue 2, pp 247–263 | Cite as

Publish to earn incentives: how do Indonesian professors respond to the new policy?

  • William Sandy
  • Hong ShenEmail author


In the early 2017, Indonesian government announced a new regulation no. 20/2017 which obliges Indonesian professors to publish certain amounts of articles to earn professional incentives. This study conducted semi-structured interviews with professors from two public universities in Indonesia in the summer 2017 to gather their perceptions on the new regulation. It was found that most interviewees accepted the legitimacy of the regulation but lamented its time frame, which they deemed too sudden and too short for those who do not have any publication; another concern argued by the professors was that the research support systems in Indonesia are not ready yet to help them in conducting meaningful research, and the last opinion was that the new regulation can be improved in its writing, implementing, and matched policy reform.


Publication Incentives University faculty New policy Qualitative study Indonesia 


  1. Adler, N., & Harzing, A. (2009). When knowledge wins: transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1), 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 128–152.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anstey, A. (2015). Publish and perish: how plagiarism can penalize perpetrators. British Journal of Dermatology, 172, 549–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbour, V. (2015). Publish or perish culture encourages scientists to cut corners. Retrieved from:
  6. Bell, J. (2010). Doing your research project. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Borwein, J. (2015). The ‘train wreck’ continues: another social science retraction. Retrieved from:
  8. Bouchikhi, H., & Kimberley, J. (2001). “It’s difficult to innovate”: the death of the tenured professor and the birth of the knowledge entrepreneur. Human relations, 54(1), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Casati, F., Giunchiglia, F., & Marchese, M. (2006). Publish and perish: why the current publication and review model is killing research and wasting your money. Retrieved from:
  13. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Creamer, E.G. (1998). Accessing faculty publication productivity: Issues of equity. ASHE-ERIC higher education report. 26(2).Google Scholar
  16. De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dhani, A. (2016). Muramnya wajah dunia riset Indonesia (In Indonesian). Retrieved from:
  18. Faizal, E.B. (2015). Few Indonesian science papers published in int’l journals. Retrieved from:
  19. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, doi:
  20. Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90(3), 891–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fanelli, D. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feller, I. (1996). The determinants of research competitiveness among universities. In A. H. Teich (Ed.), Competitiveness in academic research (pp. 35–72).Google Scholar
  24. Henwood, K., & Pidgeon, N. (1992). Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. British Journal of Psychology, 83(1), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Honig, B. (2011). iThenticate white paper: pressure to publish: how globalization and technology are increasing misconduct in scholarly research. Oakland: iParadigms.Google Scholar
  26. Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(1), 17–30.Google Scholar
  27. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine.
  28. Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 259–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2006). Methods in educational research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Merriam, S. (2002). Associates qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Nath, S. B., Marcus, S. C., & Druss, B. G. (2006). Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? Medical Journal of Australia, 185(3), 152–154.Google Scholar
  32. Parker, L. D., & Guthrie, J. (2012). Accounting scholars and journals rating and benchmarking: risking academic research quality. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parr, C. (2014). Imperial College London to ‘review procedures’ after death of academic. The times Higher Education. Retrieved from:
  34. Qiu, J. (2010). Publish or perish in China. Nature, 463, 142–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sarewitz, D. (2016). The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Retrieved from:
  36. Saroh, M. (2017). Dana Riset Indonesia Paling Rendah di Asia Tenggara. Retrieved from:
  37. Scimago (2017). Country rank. Retrieved from: Ttp://
  38. Smithrim, K., Upitis, R., Meban, M., & Patteson, A. (2000). Get public or perish. Language and Literacy.
  39. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas, L. G. (1996). The two faces of competition: dynamic resourcefulness and the hypercompetitive shift. Organization Science, 7(3), 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tight, M. (2010). Are academic workloads increasing? The post war survey evidence in the UK. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(2), 200–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tijdink, J. K., Vergouwen, A. C., & Smulders, Y. M. (2013). Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: a nationwide survey. PLoS One, 8, e73381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tozer, L., & Summers, R. (2015). Publish or perish: a sustainable imperative? Palmerston North: Massey University.Google Scholar
  44. Tsauo, J. (2013). Employment pressure and the burden of publication in China. Stu. BMJ, 21, f7064.Google Scholar
  45. Van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2012). Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: a worldwide survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1282–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: the trouble with retractions. Nature, 478, 26–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(9), 567–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wesel, M. V. (2016). Evaluation by citation: trends in publication behavior, evaluation criteria, and the strive for high impact publications. Science and Engineering Ethics., 22(1), 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations